As I expressed in a comment over at Bob S.’ place, the admonition “Do not be an asshole” could be far better expressed, at least for me, as “Behave however you like, but man up and accept the consequences.”
By and large, I do not care how other people behave – I am responsible only for my actions, and if someone is behaving in a fashion I do not appreciate or enjoy, I will simply disassociate myself from them, and leave them to do whatever the hell it was they were doing. If people want to make asses of themselves, I am not going to stop them, but neither am I going to cheer them on… or even stand idly by and watch (unless it is particularly entertaining, of course).
But that is speaking generally… speaking more specifically, when those people’s actions have demonstrably degraded the quality of life for folks around them… well, then I start getting a little annoyed:
In the wake of two men openly carrying guns in the downtown branch of the Capital Area District Library, state Rep. Joan Bauer is preparing legislation that would add public libraries to the short list of facilities that are exempt from the state’s open carry law.
To be certain, this new legislation has not gotten anywhere yet, nor are there any indications that it will get anywhere, but now the pro-rights activists in Michigan will have to waste their time trying to get it knocked down, rather than doing something actually productive and beneficial – in short, the “broken window” fallacy, in action. Unfortunately, some folks seem to frequently be of the mindset that “there is no such thing as bad publicity”, and incidents like these just give us another opportunity to slap down the ever-encroaching blob of “gun control”, but Mike W. reminds us of how well that did not go in the past.
Now, as Pol Mordreth observed in comments, it is highly debatable as to whether or not the open carriers in the Michigan library were behaving in anything approximating an “assholish” fashion – so far as I can tell, accounts of the incident are available here and here – but, at this point, it is a pretty unavoidable observation that they reached too far and too fast.
Yes, we should be able to walk into any store or establishment that would welcome us carrying whatever firearm, tool, or implement we so desire… but we are not there yet, and we are not likely to be there for quite some time. And, yes, I say that as someone who almost exclusively openly carries these days (at least weather-permitting… I am not going to freeze my ass off just to make a political point) and someone who firmly believes in the power of open carry as a form of political activism*… but also as someone who openly carries in a decidedly low-key, non-confrontational, subdued fashion. Should I have to mind my p’s and q’s that carefully? No. Does that responsible behavior always save one from undue attention? Apparently not. But inertia is the rule of the political world as much as it is the physical, and if you try to go from 10 to 60 in no seconds flat, you are going to have some folks falling off your bandwagon.
* – And, really, the notion that I should present my OC credentials is somewhat laughable, but the response of some of the more-vocal OC “advocates” (specifically, calling anyone who disagrees with them “anti-gunners”) seem to necessitate it.
(Courtesy of The Breda Fallacy.)
Good lord man, I just read the threads over at OCDO. Are they intentionally trying to drive people away? I’m a huge fan of OC and am a member of Delaware Open Carry, yet apparently some of these folks have no problem calling me a “fudd” because I happen to agree with what Breda said.
I can’t help but laugh at the fact that she’s been called a “Fudd” several times over on OCDO. The mental gymnastics needed to call Breda a Fudd are bordering on what I’d expect from the anti’s. Hell, she posts a picture of herself open carrying and says,
“As a gun owner, there are few better feelings than walking down the street in a freedom-friendly town with a pistol on your hip.”
If that isn’t enough for these rabid OC’ers to realize that she is ultimately on their side I don’t know what is. I’m quite sure Breda would LOVE to be able to carry in a library in Ohio and would do so if it were legal.
Interesting article. Did you note the sentence where a different rep tendered a bill to eliminate gunfree zones entirely? So, in the aftermath of this we have 2 competing bills: one that would add libraries to the off limits places, and another that would eliminate all off limits places. So, either QoL will be marginally worse of significantly better for gun owners in a few months.
Regards,
Pol
err… or… Prufredink iz gud…
lol
@ mike w.:
Mike W.
I’m not calling you a Fudd….far from it but the logic is there and this is what I don’t understand.
Why in the world aren’t we all defending these folks vigorously?
A Fudd is someone who thinks that his weapon of choice is okay but mine isn’t.
Ok….
It’s okay to Open Carry a Pistol but not a Shotgun?
Oh, it’s okay to Open Carry a shotgun just not THERE….if not there, then where?
I’m not saying we have to approve of their actions but we darn sure better be defending their actions.
And I’m not seeing that defense. If people are successful in saying that a shotgun has no place in a library — why is a pistol any more appropriate?
I have to agree with Bob. I can almost hear people saying… “but it’s a shotgun. Everyone knows how threatening a shotgun is.” Which leads us right back into… so because you are more threatened by it, it shouldn’t be allowed. Maybe that’s why England isn’t allowed to have knives… It’s “threatening”.
@ mike w.: The rampant name-calling and finger-pointing from the OC folks is getting somewhat disquieting… Here they are being told that they are alienating people, and they are seeing the alienation kick in full-speed, and they are doing everything possible to accelerate that alienation. Uhm. Guys. You are doing it wrong.
This is not to say that they do not have valid objections to specific points, but present them calmly, rationally, and politely, and a significant portion of this intra-gunny angst could have been avoided from the very beginning (and that goes for both sides, in all regards).
@ Pol Mordreth: Quite true! I would be rather amused if both bills were successful, given that it would result in only the latter mattering, but that is just me… But would you not rather that the Michigan firearm owners only have to worry about getting support for the latter, instead of having to divide their attention and efforts?
@ Bob S.: Speaking specifically to the topic of openly carrying shotguns, there is a specific and important reason we carry handguns in holsters – safety. The trigger is completely enclosed; the firearm is pointed in an (arguably) safe direction; the firearm is not going to be flailing about randomly, etc. When sling-carrying, you have no such guarantee on any of those points.
In the field, that does not really matter. In a populated area, I frown on any form of carry that does not actively and completely control the firearm in question.
@ Patrick: “Not safe” != “threatening”, though it sometimes can. I would be just as concerned about someone carrying a handgun in their hand, or a sword on their hip that only has six inches of the blade in a sheath.
Linoge,
I’m not disputing that the shotgun is a little less safe than a firearm. Not at all.
I’m asking why we aren’t pushing the fact that the state law prohibits a 18,19,20 from carrying a pistol?
You want more safe carry, let the under 21 but over 18 carry pistols. I don’t see the “Don’t carry a shotgun in the library crowd” making that argument.
As far as that particular incident, have you any information about the condition of the shotgun? Was there are round in the chamber? type of shotgun even?
I also frown on it — but I’ll defend people’s right to carry what they want. Are you seeing the “Not in a Library” crowd actively defending that right?
@bob s
I thought it only prohibited CONCEALED carry in the state in question for that age range.
[...] Yeah…again use your brains morons!! Your just hurting our cause doing stupid shit. More here, here, here, and here. Read the comments. Some interesting ones. Now I am not against open carry, There [...]
Heather you are correct. As long as you legally own a pistol you can open carry it which basically means if you are 18 or older you can open carry any pistol you own.
That said, carrying a concealed weapon is a five year felony and people have been convicted for carrying a pistol uncovered but in a IWB holster. So open carrying a pistol without a CPL is kind of like dancing with the devil, if the police decide they don’t like the cut of your jib they can make your life painful. Also the transport rules for pistols are much stricter than long arms.
Having said all that I do agree with Linoge and others that carrying long arms requires much more care than a pistol with regards to muzzle discipline and such.
I think part of the problem is that there has been name calling from both sides of the argument. Some of the pro OC guys have been extremely rude and uncouth I will admit but calling people buffoons and such while telling them that they need to be wining hearts and minds at the same time does not help either.
That said, carrying a concealed weapon is a five year felony and people have been convicted for carrying a pistol uncovered but in a IWB holster.
Here in DE we’ve been told “unofficially” (since the AG’s office doesn’t give legal advice) that carrying an obviously uncovered pistol in an IWB holster is NOT open carry and would be considered a CCDW felony.
@ Bob S.: *raises a hand* I am saying all of those things. You will not that I agree that we should be able to do what this individual does, and I could swear I have written comments in the past illustrating my frustration over people being able to take up arms for our country, but not themselves. Likewise, I have seen similar things from other folks who think this particular incident was a bad idea in the makings.
Just because we do not say it here does not mean we do not believe it.
But all of that is somewhat besides the point – it was legal for this individual to openly carry a handgun. He chose to carry a shotgun to make a point, and boy did he.
@ Stan: I completely agree that words could have been chosen more carefully on both sides… But if that is all it takes to drive a rather significant rift between folks arguably on the same side, we have more serious problems than I had initially thought.
@ mike w.: Yeah, our AG is the same way – opinions are completely unbinding, and mean nothing unless otherwise upheld in court. Oh so useful.
@ Linoge:
The handgun in a holster is also under my complete control at all times. A slung long gun, not so much.
[...] on well hello theredeadcenter on Karma WIN! wizardpc’s Neighborhood Editionmike w. on an equal and opposite reactionOddball on they ate a chupacabra?Karma, It’ll Get You « A Geek With Guns on Karma WIN! [...]
Exactly. The Four Rules apply to a firearm at all times, and while taking a shot in my gluteous is not exactly something I want to do, it is far better than said shot just sailing off into the unknown.
Slings are great for combat, hunting, and target shooting, but they simply do not offer sufficient control over the firearm for urban environment carry, in my opinion.
And, when you get right down to it, us “gun nuts” are as much control freaks as the anti-rights cultists are… just not at all in the same way
.